In this video I review the SMC Pentax M 50mm f/1.4. It’s one of the most popular and sought after vintage lenses.
It’s so hyped that I might have built it up so much in my head that it had no chance to live up to expections so big. And it didn’t.
It’s a pretty darn good vintage lens, that left me a bit puzzled.
It’s great in a lot of ways, with decent image quality, a splendid build quality that will make it last several lifetimes, but after having done this review the only thing I still want to do with it is sell it.
I tend to agree. I think once a vintage lens gets a certain reputation, it sticks. Many of the more expensive sought after lenses I’ve tried have been pretty disappointing. And much of it is personal preference as well. Nowadays I don’t tend to read up on vintage lenses I buy anymore. It has led me astray so many times. The real test is wether or not I like the pictures they produce.
I have two copies of this lens and if you’re evaluating it wide open you won’t have a different experience. It’s helpful to think of f/1.4 on this lens as a focusing aid and to make the viewfinder brighter (although it’s so soft wide open it’s actually a bit difficult to focus in my opinion), or perhaps as a combo lensbaby + sharp 50. Stopped down a bit though it and I really like the images I get from it. I think your comments on the bokeh are why people really like it. It has a very pleasing transition from in to out of focus.
My initial impressions were similar to yours when I look at the f/1.4 performance. However, after using it for a while, an experience I have quite often is I’ll be looking through my photos and go “Oh, I really like that one. Which lens did I use?”, and it is from this lens. I wasn’t aware it was sought after though, maybe I should sell my redundant copy
I’m not familiar with the 1.4, but I have used the Pentax M 50Mm 1.7; my experience with this lens is similar, in that 1.7 is somewhat problematic (soft focus, blooming, chromatic aberations, etc.) — stopped down to 2.0, however, everything improves dramatically.
I once read a review that proposed that rating the lens as 1.7 was likely more of a promotional stunt than anything else (faster lenses are always more attractive and sell for more money); maybe the same could be argued for the 1.4?
I also have a copy of the 1.7 (it was a good deal… I don’t have a problem, I swear ). At least on my copy I would say it is considerably sharper than the 1.4 wide open (but with plenty of aberrations) and might even be better at f/1.7 than the 1.4 is at f/2 in that respect. Past that I prefer the 1.4 in ways I can’t really quantify, but the results are so similar I would advise anyone looking to buy one to get the 1.7. On the M series at least it has a similar build quality and is even more compact.
